It looks to me like DF27 and its major subclade Z196 originated somewhere along the south-east coast of France during the early Western European Copper Age. More important than the menhirs these men built were the prestige burials that defined them in death. The dagger with a triangular blade was their greatest status symbol.

Bell Beaker finds are dated to 2900 BC in SW Iberia. If one looks at the distribution of BB on a map, the only thing that makes sense is that P312 was already in existence in every corner of the Bell Beaker world. Since true P312** now seems to be rare, in Iberia more so than in Italy or Great Britain according to the 1000 Genomes data, it only makes sense that DF27 and Z196 entered into Iberia by at least 2900 BC. A large DF27 population completely replacing a large and prosperous Iberian P312* BB population is unrealistic and has no archaeological basis.

That makes sense to me. I wish Lee et al had been able to test those two Kromsdorf Beaker Boys for P312 (at least).

A P312/Beaker connection seems right, with various major P312 subclades originating among Beaker clans in various places.

A number of scholars have proposed a possible connection between the Beaker Folk and an early form of Celtic or even Italo-Celtic, the most recent being David Anthony, in his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language. I know it upsets some folks to make such haplogroup/ethno-linguistic connections, but the distribution of P312 fits the old Celtic beat pretty well.

If everybody gets to vote, it doesn't make sense to me (the SE France part). That may have been one of the places their boats landed, before or after they set up pottery works in present Portugal; but I very much suspect they were boats manned by DF27+ long distance traders, from at least as far east as the Baltic. And note, I have not misspelled "Balkan." Have you and Gioiello been hiding some Ligurian, Sardinian or Etruscan DF27* Y-DNA someplace... or is this just more of that refugium stuff? I don't believe I've read that the Phoenicians or Minoans were DF27, either. But it's still early days for that haplogroup -- hasn't yet been tested much. I'm willing to be shown evidence that this Y-DNA moved westward along a Mediterranean route, if or when there is some.

Anyway, the interesting part to me is about the effigy stonework. I read somewhere recently that the reason some of those guys practiced cremation was that the soul of the deceased hero was thought to inhabit his memorial stone, not his bones. I think those effigies may have establish free trade points, under the protection of the late scary guy with the triangular dagger and other previously unfamiliar hardware. There just about had to be some sort of numinous backup for a few men in a boat trading Baltic amber beads for Cornish tin ingots, Portuguese tableware, fertile brides, or whatever was on offer. The boats weren't big enough to bring along the whole Russian army for protection, so they probably figured out a way to make do with a few prominently displayed warrior gods and some epic poetry.

If everybody gets to vote, it doesn't make sense to me (the SE France part). That may have been one of the places their boats landed, before or after they set up pottery works in present Portugal; but I very much suspect they were boats manned by DF27+ long distance traders, from at least as far east as the Baltic. And note, I have not misspelled "Balkan." Have you and Gioiello been hiding some Ligurian, Sardinian or Etruscan DF27* Y-DNA someplace... or is this just more of that refugium stuff? I don't believe I've read that the Phoenicians or Minoans were DF27, either. But it's still early days for that haplogroup -- hasn't yet been tested much. I'm willing to be shown evidence that this Y-DNA moved westward along a Mediterranean route, if or when there is some.

Anyway, the interesting part to me is about the effigy stonework. I read somewhere recently that the reason some of those guys practiced cremation was that the soul of the deceased hero was thought to inhabit his memorial stone, not his bones. I think those effigies may have establish free trade points, under the protection of the late scary guy with the triangular dagger and other previously unfamiliar hardware. There just about had to be some sort of numinous backup for a few men in a boat trading Baltic amber beads for Cornish tin ingots, Portuguese tableware, fertile brides, or whatever was on offer. The boats weren't big enough to bring along the whole Russian army for protection, so they probably figured out a way to make do with a few prominently displayed warrior gods and some epic poetry.

I see that you are moving the conversation away from logic and also tying me to a theory I don't believe in. So much for your trying to drum up interest in DF27 huh? That Indo-Europeans took a path through the Alps is not one I invented. In fact, all of the better known archaeologists include the Remedello and/or Rinaldone people of northern and central Italy in such migrations:

- The Civilization of the Goddess by Marija Gimbutas (her now famous Kurgan Theory book)- In Search of the Indo-Europeans by J. P. Mallory- The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland) by Richard Harrison and Volker Heyd

Now, I may not agree in the Pontic-Steppe theory, but most of the data points to an SE to NW migration for R1b.

Since most here are very familiar with these theories, do you care to share which culture the seafaring men from the Baltics belonged to?

I see that you are moving the conversation away from logic and also tying me to a theory I don't believe in.

Yes, this theory is mine and not of Rocca’s. Rocca is giving his contribute, and this he must do. Probably now he is believing more than some months ago on the origin of R-U152 (at least DYS492=14) in Italy more than in France. And why he wrote to me that he believes that the Sicilian R-U152 came to Sicily from Sardinia and to Sardinia from Tuscany?

I am seeing on another thread that JeanL is saying to VV what I am writing from years (if I find my post on ancient G2a, I’ll demonstrate this by its dating) and I thank him. I have discussed with him many times in the past, without any result, or , better, many banishments.

To Rocca I repeat:

R1b1* YCAII=18-22 and 18-23I am waiting that a deep test on Mangino is done (he is between R1b1 and R-M269R1b1a2/M269 YCAII=17-23 and others (I am demonstrating by a link with a person tested by 23andMe that also Filandro was pure Italian and the Brazilian Rodrigues is probably a NPE from a Filandro emigrated there), other with DYS462=12 (my cousin Fabrizio Federighi)R-L23/150- (Romitti)Many R-L150 (also mine) close to subcladesAbout R-L51 a few doubts now

By a linguistic point of view and about the migrations of agriculturalists from Italy to Iberia there are the papers (peer reviews) of Zilhao and others and of Koch and others.The theory that Etruscan was intermediate between the Caucasian languages and Indo-European ones was of Alfredo Trombetti, the great linguist of the monogenesis of the language, and also the great Ligurian linguist Giacomo Devoto spoke for the Etruscan of “peri-indoeropeo”.I know that you don’t know these great linguists, but tant pis pour vous et non pour moi.

Now, I may not agree in the Pontic-Steppe theory, but most of the data points to an SE to NW migration for R1b.

Since most here are very familiar with these theories, do you care to share which culture the seafaring men from the Baltics belonged to?

I am among those who largely agree with those familiar theories; but I'm not talking about a culture (and especially not about an archaeological horizon), I'm talking about DF27. The topic of this thread, which you started. (Call them the Dover Boats, that makes about as much sense as calling them Bell Beakers; except that the boats aren't ceramic so we don't have so many to probe for their secrets.) And I'm suggesting that the (very preliminary) evidence so far seems to point at a more rapid, non-agricultural, maybe metal-related, maritime spread of it (DF27) from east to west, largely along the Atlantic rather than the Mediterranean coastlines and estuaries of Europe.

There may be some evidence associating Ligurians with DF27, but I don't believe it's in the literature yet. Some SRY2627 nowadays around Marseilles is not the same thing as R-P312 or his daddy crossing (either side of) the Alps 5000 years ago, and giving birth to little DF27 in SE France -- which the haplogroup hitherto described in the said literature as dominant there (U152) clearly could not do. And L51 or L11 without the intervening generations/SNPs couldn't do that (create SRY2627 ex nihilo), either.

On the other hand, it might have happened in Morbihan -- only one must still account for various subclades dropped off along the way there.

It looks to me like DF27 and its major subclade Z196 originated somewhere along the south-east coast of France during the early Western European Copper Age. More important than the menhirs these men built were the prestige burials that defined them in death. The dagger with a triangular blade was their greatest status symbol.

Bell Beaker finds are dated to 2900 BC in SW Iberia. If one looks at the distribution of BB on a map, the only thing that makes sense is that P312 was already in existence in every corner of the Bell Beaker world. Since true P312** now seems to be rare, in Iberia more so than in Italy or Great Britain according to the 1000 Genomes data, it only makes sense that DF27 and Z196 entered into Iberia by at least 2900 BC. A large DF27 population completely replacing a large and prosperous Iberian P312* BB population is unrealistic and has no archaeological basis.

I am not sure about his. I am not so sure that the earliest beakers in Iberia were P312 at all. I dont see any problem with the idea that DF27 achieved a male line replacement from a zero start in Iberia. Other clades did exactly the same thing elsehwere e.g L21 in the isles. .

The problem is that R1b is definately of eastern origin looking at the distribution upstream but beaker pot is oldest in SW Europe. I dont think at the point of origin of beaker it is easy to envisage R1b being there. I understand there are wide confidence intervals in clade dating but beaker in SW Europe in its earliest phase is about 3-400 years older than the very consistant centre point of interclade dates for R1b in western Europe.

As for archaeological evidence, in general the dominance of beaker lineages is not something archaeologists in the modern era would ever have predicted prior to the recent yDNA evidence. i am not convinced (although have an open mind) on the 'great leap' idea of an external eastern origin for the pre-beaker copper age population as far west as Iberia. That has been debated and chewed over many times by archaeologists and the general conclusion is that there is little evidence for it. The closest possibility to such a great pre-beaker leap from the east to Iberia is on the L23* variance map which looks more of a southern east to west pre-beaker spread. However, even if there was its not like we can see a pre-beaker L23* population seeding various future beaker areas. This of course doesnt work because the main clades all also share the later L51, L11 and in many cases in the beaker world the P312 SNPs and descend from just one guy who had all of these. Your L51* map looks to me like it correponds with the spread of beaker about 2600BC. Bottom line is if most of the male lineages of western Europe are descended from just one copper age L11 man then that is beyond archaeology from identifying and anything is possible. Clearly if one guy was so important then we have got to hope some echo of it on a pan-European archaeology. The only widespread enough phenomenon to explain the distribution of R1b below L51 is beaker. Again though the explosion from rare above P312 to explosive branching does imply that initially P312 people when moving about must have been small groups who would have been in no way capable of militarily taking on much larger native groups so I still believe they were INITIALLY welcomed for their skills and networking but that the local elites probably came to regret that once they were in their midsts for a century or two and their numbers grew.

I dont think it can be emphasised enough that (if the variance calculations are correct) P312 was very new c. 2600-2500BC when beakers really expanded. When they were moving about they might well have just been the grandsons or great grandsons of the original P312 guy. Their numbers must have been very small initially. I think the model of specialist clans settling with the blessing of locals is really the only one that fits. They may have remained a presitgious but niche enclave controlling local metals and trade for their first few generations and it may have taken centuries for them to become a significant element in terms of size.

I think that can be seen especially well in Ireland where beaker elements arrived c. 2500-2400BC and mined, traded, beaker appeared etc but the most beaker-associated tombs (Wedge tombs) had a distribution mainly in the rocky (metal bearing) areas in the west and uplands elsewhere and it was only c. 200 years or so later when classic beaker burial traditions (in the form of food vessel burials) took hold and also geographically extended into in the better agricultural areas in the eastern half of the island.

That to me might represent the transformation of beaker people from a small niche group providing prestige goods for the locals (who initially in the east of Ireland just encorporated beaker sherds etc into cremation deposits much like they had done in pre-beaker times with other pots) to the dominance of their traditions and idealogy across the island. Even the odd way that beaker traditions take hold when beaker pots are replaced in the burial sphere by food vessels (but beakers remained in the domestic sphere) is suggesting of a period where beaker ideas were slighly modified for local tastes before becoming dominant. If beaker vessels represent a drinking cult then the transformaton to food vessels (some of them just that and others to contain cremations) shows that the beaker traditions were modified to take on existing tastes to some degree. There was clearly a 200 year or so period when beaker traditions moved from a niche/periphery to being the dominant idealogy. I suspect that period may also have seen in parallel L21 in Ireland move from tiny niche groups on the periphery through a period of great growth to become a more substantial minority element in society. I supect that the beaker groups slowly morphed from a niche provider into a warrior class as the Bronze Age progressed

I am among those who largely agree with those familiar theories; but I'm not talking about a culture (and especially not about an archaeological horizon), I'm talking about DF27. The topic of this thread, which you started. (Call them the Dover Boats, that makes about as much sense as calling them Bell Beakers; except that the boats aren't ceramic so we don't have so many to probe for their secrets.) And I'm suggesting that the (very preliminary) evidence so far seems to point at a more rapid, non-agricultural, maybe metal-related, maritime spread of it (DF27) from east to west, largely along the Atlantic rather than the Mediterranean coastlines and estuaries of Europe.

There may be some evidence associating Ligurians with DF27, but I don't believe it's in the literature yet. Some SRY2627 nowadays around Marseilles is not the same thing as R-P312 or his daddy crossing (either side of) the Alps 5000 years ago, and giving birth to little DF27 in SE France -- which the haplogroup hitherto described in the said literature as dominant there (U152) clearly could not do. And L51 or L11 without the intervening generations/SNPs couldn't do that (create SRY2627 ex nihilo), either.

On the other hand, it might have happened in Morbihan -- only one must still account for various subclades dropped off along the way there.

You can call them Dover Boat people, but nobody is going to follow you. Besides, I have a feeling the Bell Beaker folks that lived in Sion would have had a great difficulty dragging a boat up those pesky Alps. Naming aside, what is the preliminary evidence that you have for DF27's dispersal from the Baltic?

As for your association of DF27 to the spread of metallurgy...metallurgy spread from northern Italy to SW France and from there to Ireland via the Atlantic. It did not come the Baltics.

I am not sure about his. I am not so sure that the earliest beakers in Iberia were P312 at all. I dont see any problem with the idea that DF27 achieved a male line replacement from a zero start in Iberia. Other clades did exactly the same thing elsehwere e.g L21 in the isles. .

The problem is that R1b is definately of eastern origin looking at the distribution upstream but beaker pot is oldest in SW Europe. I dont think at the point of origin of beaker it is easy to envisage R1b being there. I understand there are wide confidence intervals in clade dating but beaker in SW Europe in its earliest phase is about 3-400 years older than the very consistant centre point of interclade dates for R1b in western Europe.

As for archaeological evidence, in general the dominance of beaker lineages is not something archaeologists in the modern era would ever have predicted prior to the recent yDNA evidence. i am not convinced (although have an open mind) on the 'great leap' idea of an external eastern origin for the pre-beaker copper age population as far west as Iberia. That has been debated and chewed over many times by archaeologists and the general conclusion is that there is little evidence for it. The closest possibility to such a great pre-beaker leap from the east to Iberia is on the L23* variance map which looks more of a southern east to west pre-beaker spread. However, even if there was its not like we can see a pre-beaker L23* population seeding various future beaker areas. This of course doesnt work because the main clades all also share the later L51, L11 and in many cases in the beaker world the P312 SNPs and descend from just one guy who had all of these. Your L51* map looks to me like it correponds with the spread of beaker about 2600BC. Bottom line is if most of the male lineages of western Europe are descended from just one copper age L11 man then that is beyond archaeology from identifying and anything is possible. Clearly if one guy was so important then we have got to hope some echo of it on a pan-European archaeology. The only widespread enough phenomenon to explain the distribution of R1b below L51 is beaker. Again though the explosion from rare above P312 to explosive branching does imply that initially P312 people when moving about must have been small groups who would have been in no way capable of militarily taking on much larger native groups so I still believe they were INITIALLY welcomed for their skills and networking but that the local elites probably came to regret that once they were in their midsts for a century or two and their numbers grew.

As Jean M has tried to explain ad nauseam; pots are not people. The R1b people that went into Iberia did so in the pre-Beaker Copper Age, so the east-to-west movement is not violated and makes the most sense. In fact, the L51 map mirrors the spread of the Copper Age from N. Italy into S. France. It does not represent Bell Beaker movements as L51 seems to be non-existant north and east of the Alps. As for DF27's role in all of this? Here is a map of P312*:

I know, it is a map of P312* and not DF27. But as the 1000 Genomes Project has shown us, true P312* is a lot more common in Great Britain and Italy than it is in Iberia. That means that in reality, DF27 is even more Iberia-centric than this map makes it out to be. This map also shows why those single DF27 finds here and there in FTDNA projects have almost no meaning in any theory anyone can put together and why FTDNA projects should never be used in these discussions. Anyone who has a lineage outside of the core P312 area on the map and is DF27+ is probably the result of the out-of-Iberia Bell Beaker movement.

I know, it is a map of P312* and not DF27. But as the 1000 Genomes Project has shown us, true P312* is a lot more common in Great Britain and Italy than it is in Iberia. That means that in reality, DF27 is even more Iberia-centric than this map makes it out to be. This map also shows why those single DF27 finds here and there in FTDNA projects have almost no meaning in any theory anyone can put together and why FTDNA projects should never be used in these discussions. Anyone who has a lineage outside of the core P312 area on the map and is DF27+ is probably the result of the out-of-Iberia Bell Beaker movement.

Yes, it is what I am saying too. The problem was to answer when R-L51 reached Iberia:1) either 7500 years ago with the agriculturalists (but someone may think it is too earlier: but why those R-L51 in Valencia Region and Central Poprtugal?)2) or later, with some expansion of Ligurians, anyway before the Bell Beakers, but which documented expansion happened from Italy to Iberia before the Roman one?3) of course P312* could be in the expansion, seen that it is more frequent in Italy (in percentage amongst the P312) and in the Isles, but I have always said that it is documented another expansion from Italy to Central Europe to the Isles, that I tried to prove by the expansions of my K1a1b1e, found in Italy and the Isles but not in Iberia, and this expansion may be happened (with many others) 7500 years ago.

I know, it is a map of P312* and not DF27. But as the 1000 Genomes Project has shown us, true P312* is a lot more common in Great Britain and Italy than it is in Iberia. That means that in reality, DF27 is even more Iberia-centric than this map makes it out to be. This map also shows why those single DF27 finds here and there in FTDNA projects have almost no meaning in any theory anyone can put together and why FTDNA projects should never be used in these discussions.

I believe you have a harder time than I do in separating the 1000 Genomes project from reality. It was a great project, and I'm the beneficiary of many of the SNP discoveries made through it, by you and a few others. But its sample was at least as skewed as FTDNA projects, though not in exactly the same way; and much of that appearance of Iberia-centrism is a function of the said sample skewing. I'd like to see more Romanian, Afghan, Siberian, Algonquian, etc. genomes among the 1000, 2000, or whatever it takes to balance the sample. Others would also like to see that sort of thing, I'm not just making this up to argue with you about DF27 origins. I think L. Mayka, for example, mentions it once or twice a week (on other forums). He has a Polish project... coincidence?

Quote

Anyone who has a lineage outside of the core P312 area on the map and is DF27+ is probably the result of the out-of-Iberia Bell Beaker movement.

Well, maybe probably -- if there was such a thing, if Bell Beaker is associated with DF27, if it was linguistically proto-Italo-Celtic, and if it happened as early as you think. I'm not sure anybody really knows, yet. Certainly, there are some strong opinions. Several have been posted while I'm writing this.

About the metallurgy thing, I don't disagree about the general direction of movement of the Bronze Age craft specialties. But the guys looking for ores, and opening trade routes to their sources, preceded most of that -- and if they were DF27, IMO came from someplace more like the Ukraine, and less like the Tyrol -- and not very likely SE France.

When Jean Manco's book comes out, it will settle this question -- probably by saying that we need to wait for the aDNA. Do you think those Kromsdorf Bell Beaker guys were DF27? I think I read M269, but it's slipped my mind. Something inadequately precise, anyway.

I noticed on Richard Rocca's map that there does not seem to be any maritime in put from the bay of Biscay. This is a dangerous sea way I don't think the 'Dover type boat' would fair to well. It seems the 'Skin hulled boat's were the ones that journeyed most in the Atlantic. So boat technology would be more important than pottery. Their might be a gender imbalance between the 2. Pots were most probably made mostly by women where as boats are more male orientated. So I'd expect a Y type of Beaker origin to be spread much further than actual beakers, at the start at least. I'm no expert, just a thought.

I believe you have a harder time than I do in separating the 1000 Genomes project from reality. It was a great project, and I'm the beneficiary of many of the SNP discoveries made through it, by you and a few others. But its sample was at least as skewed as FTDNA projects, though not in exactly the same way; and much of that appearance of Iberia-centrism is a function of the said sample skewing. I'd like to see more Romanian, Afghan, Siberian, Algonquian, etc. genomes among the 1000, 2000, or whatever it takes to balance the sample. Others would also like to see that sort of thing, I'm not just making this up to argue with you about DF27 origins. I think L. Mayka, for example, mentions it once or twice a week (on other forums). He has a Polish project... coincidence?

I know the limitations of the 1000 Genomes Project data quite well. My assumptions are all based on taking a whole bunch of different data from different sources. However, the 1000 Genomes data is not what causes Iberia-centrism for DF27. It is the fact that east of France, P312* drops off a cliff and therefore you cannot fabricate frequency out of thin air. You think because the 1000 Genomes Project did not take samples from Romania it might be a hot bed for DF27? Look at my map. It is based on many academic studies. Myres found P312* to be 1.7% in Romania. Even if it is all DF27 (unlikely), the DF27 presence in Romania can be deduced as insignificant. Now repeat the scenario for every single country east of the Alps, from the Baltic down to the Balkans and you will find the same thing.

Quote

Well, maybe probably -- if there was such a thing, if Bell Beaker is associated with DF27, if it was linguistically proto-Italo-Celtic, and if it happened as early as you think. I'm not sure anybody really knows, yet. Certainly, there are some strong opinions. Several have been posted while I'm writing this.

DF27 can be associated with Bell Beaker, but not all Bell Beaker. I don't think DF27 had anything to do with the Begleitkeramik Bell Beaker movements of Central Europe.

Quote

About the metallurgy thing, I don't disagree about the general direction of movement of the Bronze Age craft specialties. But the guys looking for ores, and opening trade routes to their sources, preceded most of that -- and if they were DF27, IMO came from someplace more like the Ukraine, and less like the Tyrol -- and not very likely SE France.

I didn't even say all the pre-Bell Beaker southern French metallurgists were DF27+. They were probably P312+ when they branched off into DF27 and L21 somewhere in southern France.

I know it is your desire to drum up interest in DF27 which I think is great, but just so I'm not wasting my time here, am I arguing against your opinions (or "wants") for a DF27 origin? It doesn't seem like you are providing even circumstantial evidence for your Baltic/Ukraine theory.

Quote

When Jean Manco's book comes out, it will settle this question -- probably by saying that we need to wait for the aDNA. Do you think those Kromsdorf Bell Beaker guys were DF27? I think I read M269, but it's slipped my mind. Something inadequately precise, anyway.

The Kromsdorf BB samples were M269+ but below that all we know is that they were U106-. I would guess they are more likely to be U152 than DF27, but either is possible. Even true P312* is in play there.

.. To Rocca I repeat:R1b1* YCAII=18-22 and 18-23I am waiting that a deep test on Mangino is done (he is between R1b1 and R-M269...

Malicavelli, please bear in mind that one or two STRs may be unreliable for prognostication about the whole R1b tree.

I'm YCAII=18,23 and I'm pretty sure my 1000 year-old L705.2+ makes it very unlikely my lineage was east or south of NW France when my lineage's mutation to 18,23 occurred. YCAII=18,22 and YCA=18,23 could have occurred multiple times. This is not necessarily a reliable indicator of an early branch in R1b.

I'm YCAII=18,23 and I'm pretty sure my 1000 year-old L705.2+ makes it very unlikely my lineage was east or south of NW France when my lineage's mutation to 18,23 occurred. YCAII=18,22 and YCA=18,23 could have occurred multiple times. This is not necessarily a reliable indicator of an early branch in R1b.

Yes , it is true. Of course also these markers will have mutated around the "modal", but it is more likely that they are the ancestors of the European subclades these haplotypes with 18-22 and 18-23 rather than the Eastern ones with 21-23 or 23-23.

You speaks of single cases, but my single cases are many. The last this G2c (Cigliano) with 3 mutations in the 22 slowest markers of Klyosov (see at G haplogroup). But I have done also infinite analyses about the mtDNA. See them.

I'm YCAII=18,23 and I'm pretty sure my 1000 year-old L705.2+ makes it very unlikely my lineage was east or south of NW France when my lineage's mutation to 18,23 occurred. YCAII=18,22 and YCA=18,23 could have occurred multiple times. This is not necessarily a reliable indicator of an early branch in R1b.

Yes , it is true. Of course also these markers will have mutated around the "modal", but it is more likely that they are the ancestors of the European subclades these haplotypes with 18-22 and 18-23 rather than the Eastern ones with 21-23 or 23-23.

You speaks of single cases, but my single cases are many. The last this G2c (Cigliano) with 3 mutations in the 22 slowest markers of Klyosov (see at G haplogroup). But I have done also infinite analyses about the mtDNA. See them.

Your single cases are many? All I am trying to point out that you argue by exception from single cases based on a couple of STRs and I can show you exceptions of the opposite.

Under U152, which is way downstream of R1b-M269, I can find 30 people with 18-23. Some are L2+ and some are L2- so there are at least two instances within U152. I have a larger database of L21 and I can count 111 YCAII=18,23 people. These are mostly L706.2+, my type, but there are at least 4 or 5 other instances. Under U106, I can count 22 YCAII=18,23 people. Most are under L48, but there are some under Z156 and U106** so there are at least three instances there.

Why does an eastern R1b YCAII=18,23 man have more impact on the expansion of R1b than a western R1b YCAII=18,23 man, or should I say many men?

Why does an eastern R1b YCAII=18,23 man have more impact on the expansion of R1b than a western R1b YCAII=18,23 man, or should I say many men?

Let's discuss elsewhere, this is a tangent from the modal of this thread.

Only an answer here: I am speaking of R1b1*, and how could an Eastern R1b1 with YCAII=21-23 or 23-23 have generated an R-M269 which is modal (many thinks) at 19-23, I have said at 18-23, from which the Italian cluster with 17-23 etc.? Also R-M335 was born in Western Europe, because it has YCAII=18-23. I have written a lot about this.

I am not sure about his. I am not so sure that the earliest beakers in Iberia were P312 at all. I dont see any problem with the idea that DF27 achieved a male line replacement from a zero start in Iberia. Other clades did exactly the same thing elsehwere e.g L21 in the isles. .

The problem is that R1b is definately of eastern origin looking at the distribution upstream but beaker pot is oldest in SW Europe. I dont think at the point of origin of beaker it is easy to envisage R1b being there. I understand there are wide confidence intervals in clade dating but beaker in SW Europe in its earliest phase is about 3-400 years older than the very consistant centre point of interclade dates for R1b in western Europe.

As for archaeological evidence, in general the dominance of beaker lineages is not something archaeologists in the modern era would ever have predicted prior to the recent yDNA evidence. i am not convinced (although have an open mind) on the 'great leap' idea of an external eastern origin for the pre-beaker copper age population as far west as Iberia. That has been debated and chewed over many times by archaeologists and the general conclusion is that there is little evidence for it. The closest possibility to such a great pre-beaker leap from the east to Iberia is on the L23* variance map which looks more of a southern east to west pre-beaker spread. However, even if there was its not like we can see a pre-beaker L23* population seeding various future beaker areas. This of course doesnt work because the main clades all also share the later L51, L11 and in many cases in the beaker world the P312 SNPs and descend from just one guy who had all of these. Your L51* map looks to me like it correponds with the spread of beaker about 2600BC. Bottom line is if most of the male lineages of western Europe are descended from just one copper age L11 man then that is beyond archaeology from identifying and anything is possible. Clearly if one guy was so important then we have got to hope some echo of it on a pan-European archaeology. The only widespread enough phenomenon to explain the distribution of R1b below L51 is beaker. Again though the explosion from rare above P312 to explosive branching does imply that initially P312 people when moving about must have been small groups who would have been in no way capable of militarily taking on much larger native groups so I still believe they were INITIALLY welcomed for their skills and networking but that the local elites probably came to regret that once they were in their midsts for a century or two and their numbers grew.

As Jean M has tried to explain ad nauseam; pots are not people. The R1b people that went into Iberia did so in the pre-Beaker Copper Age, so the east-to-west movement is not violated and makes the most sense. In fact, the L51 map mirrors the spread of the Copper Age from N. Italy into S. France. It does not represent Bell Beaker movements as L51 seems to be non-existant north and east of the Alps. As for DF27's role in all of this? Here is a map of P312*:

I know, it is a map of P312* and not DF27. But as the 1000 Genomes Project has shown us, true P312* is a lot more common in Great Britain and Italy than it is in Iberia. That means that in reality, DF27 is even more Iberia-centric than this map makes it out to be. This map also shows why those single DF27 finds here and there in FTDNA projects have almost no meaning in any theory anyone can put together and why FTDNA projects should never be used in these discussions. Anyone who has a lineage outside of the core P312 area on the map and is DF27+ is probably the result of the out-of-Iberia Bell Beaker movement.

I am well aware pots are not people. However, it may be popular on these forums to accept the idea of an intrusive pre-beaker copper age culture in Iberia but this is not generally accepted in the archaeological world. Archaeologists for generations have looked at the fascinating pre-beaker copper age culture of Iberia and have openly debatede the issue of whether the cultures came from the east and given it great scrutiny but they concluded that there is no evidence of an eastern origin for those cultures. If you can show me a paper by an archaeologist in the last 25 years or so that EXPLICITELY concludes the pre-Iberian copper age cultures arrived from the east I would be very surprised (although very interested). I actually am semi-persuaded of something along these lines reaching Italy/Alps etc from the east in pre-beaker times but the idea of an early pre-beaker copper age settlement in Iberia coming from the east is one of those ideas that was raised a long time ago, debated and rejected by archaeologists. What is the evidence of migration to Iberia from the east in the pre-beaker copper age? I certainly wouldnt take the Harrison and Heyd Yamnaya influences map as an indicator of migration. That would set the bar for evidence of migrations so low that the bar would have to be subject to archaelogical excavation!